NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> ONLINE-ADS>Value of Test Banners?
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> ONLINE-ADS>Value of Test Banners?
Scott Laughlin (scott-laughlin_at_worldnet.att.net)
Thursday, October 16, 1997 3:04 AM
Herman Tumurcuoglu <hermant_at_microtec.net> wrote:
>>So let me refresh your memory about the case involving one of the
>>sites I run and many other member sites where there was (and continued
>>to be) improper reporting and allegations of LE banners leading and
>>pointing from adult sites. In which case our company terminated
>>membership with LE and left behind a ton of banners.
I appreciate Herman's concern about reporting standards and brand
protection. I fear, however, that most readers will not have the
familiarity with LinkExchange to place Herman's comments in their
proper context. Here's some additional information to clarify his
points.
First, the "improper" reporting from LinkExchange Herman mentions so
casually refers to undercounting of earned advertising credits
resulting from specific software testing on our system. This testing
is now complete and the undercounting is no longer taking place. The
"many" sites he mentions as being effected actually constitute a mere
.002% of LinkExchange member sites, of which Herman's was one. We
publicly acknowledged this unanticipated technical glitch in a recent
member newsletter. We also re-credited all impacted accounts for lost
impressions. Had Herman retained his membership, he would have
received both the e-mail and the credits.
As for "LE banners on adult sites", I must agree with Herman that,
from time to time, our free advertising network attracts publishers of
adult material. What the "allegations" fail to note, however, is
attempts by adult sites to join do not, in general, impact active
members or paying sponsors in any way. In brief, anyone can try to
join the LinkExchange network, but not everyone gets "activated". For
those interested, I explain below in greater detail.
First and foremost, LinkExchange expressly bans "offensive" sites from
joining the network. Our policies are stated specifically on our Web
site and in our contract with members. Unfortunately, like laws
against drunk driving, these documents can't keep everyone from
getting behind the wheel.
That's why we maintain a rigorous *human* quality assurance program
designed to screen out potentially "brand-damaging" sites. In order
for a member to show their banner on the network or to display those
of others (get "activated"), they must first install our banner code
and then go through the QA process which includes a thorough review of
the site, it's search engine look-up criteria, it's URL, and the
banners it uses to market itself. We check for complete compliance
with or member contract.
Because of the lag between sign-ups (we get about 1,000 a day!) and
activations, however, there are occasions when our banner code is
present on undesirable sites. We protect members and paid advertisers
from this problem by having our banner code specifically programmed to
show only house ads until activation occurs. In such cases, even if
an offensive site inserts our code, no member or paid advertiser
banner ever appears. It just continues to load our banner as a default
until the code is removed.
The majority of the "allegations" to which Herman refers, therefore,
are e-mails to our member services department or postings to our
member news groups which report offensive sites trying to join. These
notes and postings are part of the robust "community policing" we
enjoy as a result of keeping over 100,000 members happy.
As for offensive banners appearing on member sites, our human
reviewers actually qualify each visited site with a ranking of 1 to 4,
with 1 being "Children Safe" and 4 being "Alternative Material".
[For clarification, "Alternative" refers to pages with mature content
such as dating advice, drinking or partying information, gay/lesbian
community information, or spiritual ideas outside of the mainstream.
Level 4 does NOT include sites with nudity, obvious profanity, extreme
political views, or anything deemed generally inappropriate by our
membership. As noted above, such sites are expressly forbidden.]
This rating system is public information and available for both
targeting and filtering. Several of our Children's sites, for
example, target their banners to other "Children's" sites, and ban
"Alternative" banners on their pages. In an opposite example, a
spirits company could target "alternative" pages and purposefully
avoid "Children's" sites. Clearly, the opportunity exists for
miscategorization, however, for the vast majority of marketers, this
system works flawlessly.
That said, some members still complaint about banners pointing to
"offensive" material as a result of improper use or outright neglect
of our free filtering tools. Our ad server delivers over 250,000
different banner creatives to over 6 million ad requests from well
over 100,000 sites daily. It's impossible for us to decide the
tolerance level of each site without the Web master's individual
contribution. When a member does not filter level 4 sites, they
become potential recipients of banners from alternative (but not
adult) content destinations.
The most extreme real example I can recall was an irate church site
administrator who blasted us for serving a "pornographic" (in the
member's personal view) gay/lesbian travel services banner to his
page. While the banner was a legitimate advertisement, it clearly
received unfortunate and embarrassing placement! To our defense,
however, we did find the member serving the banner had not targeted
his ad and the recipient had failed to activate his filters.
To put the issue to rest, I will close by conceding to Herman that the
opportunity exists for an offensive banner or site to find it's way
into the system. Humans make mistakes, criminals lie, and servers
can't recognize either. In the democratic spirit of the Internet,
however, we operate the network under the belief it's better to let a
few guilty sites go free (and eventually get caught!) than exclude one
niche sight with a legitimate right to communicate. To date, a host
of brand marketers ranging from packaged goods companies and toy
manufacturers to financial and travel services have agreed the
benefits of reaching into niche independent Web sites far outweighs
any risk of mismatch.
Herman Tumurcuoglu <hermant_at_microtec.net>also wrote:
>>I think that a great deal (but not all) of the discussions pertaining
>>to click-thru and targeting are academic. I would be more concerned
>>about branding then a slight differential in click trough... I have
>>not used DoubleClick's service but I bet this is what is more
>>"appealing" about that service. They can round up a number of sites
>>and assure you that these are the brand name sites you will be
>>showcased on. They can give you reporting and say 6% of your ads were
>>on AltaVista and 18% on GTE and this was the differential in
>>performance etc.. Those sites do not change from one day to another,
>>you know what you got, not what you think you got.
I believe most marketers agree with Herman that impressions have a
strong branding value beyond click-through. Ali Partovi (also of
LinkExchange) explained this point eloquently in a post a few days ago
when he noted 95-99% of banners purchased are NOT clicked on, but
still impact awareness and traffic.
Because of the strong branding effect, most online advertising media
are presenting strategies for brand-building. For individual sites,
the strategy is often, as Herman notes, "showcasing" with top-of-page
placement or adjacency to relevant content. These strategies are no
different than those employed by magazines which sell cover positions
and pages opposite relevant articles. By and large, this strategy
appeals to image advertisers.
For networks of commercial sites, like the one Herman mentions above,
the strategy is similar, but with an emphasis simply on positive brand
association. For certain campaigns, I agree, it would be nice to
associate a message with AltaVista or GTE. For those seeking the
Web's powerful niche communities, however, the distinction is far less
relevant.
Large networks of non-commercial sites, like LinkExchange's, don't
follow the "print" paradigm. They take a much more "broadcast"
approach. Sites which join these networks, in general, are not on the
Web for the purpose of selling advertising and are not concerned with
"showcasing". Instead, they spend their energy appealing to a
community of like-minded individuals with ideas, concepts, tips, etc.
The organic, grassroots nature of this model appeals to marketers who
build brand by getting as close as possible to the heart of their
target community.
For some brands, image is everything. Calvin Klein features
impossibly thin Kate Moss in glossy fashion magazines and BMW shows
impossibly shiny cars in personal finance magazines to make statements
about exclusivity. Other brands, however, like Snapple and Saturn,
choose to be "of the people". That's why Snapple gives "Wendy, the
lady from Long Island" the pulpit and Saturn does folksy "picnics at
the factory" for owners.
Sometimes getting ones hands around the value of grassroots marketing
is difficult. We worked with a sports marketer once, however, who
likened his program on our network to doing a promotion in "every
stadium and sports bar across the country". To be fair, this marketer
also ran on large "branded" sports sites for the positive associations
they provide. The beauty in his enduring analogy, however, is his
explanation of the different, but equally high value he sees in both
approaches.
Ultimately, the future of online branding is as diverse as the
messages, goals, and targets chosen by marketers. This fact makes
labeling one media opportunity more or less "appealing" subjective in
the extreme. I'm excited we're in an industry where so many different
media philosophies and opportunities exist. After all, it's the Web's
unique ability to cater to everyone's content desires, no matter how
large, small, mainstream, or alternative, that makes it the fastest
growing medium in human history.
Scott Laughlin
Director of Sales
LinkExchange, Inc.
http://www.linkexchange.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
NO RISK TRIAL OFFER: Buy 100,000 impressions on Hotmail targeted to
your demographic. If you aren't throughly impressed after 2 weeks, we'll
credit your next buy. Details at http://www.hotmail.com/offer.html
--------
The Internet Advertising Report provides daily columns on every aspect
of Web advertising and marketing. It is updated daily and available in
a weekly newsletter. Subscribe at: http://www.internetnews.com/IAR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
